Skip to main content

About your Search

20121224
20130101
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
make us successful. now, when justice ginsburg agreed to, she said don't want to give a lecture, but i would like a fireside chat. and i said that would be lovely. and then gave myself a challenging assignment of coming up with a plan for our conversation. it was easy to know where to start, which is what a pioneer you have been, and many people here forget that in the 1950s there were very few women in law school. if you might start by reminding those who remember, and helping to enlighten those who don't, what that was like. >> in those ancient days, i began law school in 1956 when women were perhaps 3% of the lawyers in the country, no more. no woman sat on any federal board of appeals, and it been only one in history when franklin delano roosevelt appointed from ohio to the sixth circuit court of appeals. when she left there were none until 1968. so in the years when i was going to law school, no women on any federal court of appeals, or on the supreme court. i had no woman teacher. that was unheard of. what was law school like? in the not so good old days. well, my class numbered
, you don't understand. he was want trying to single out for know. he was trying to get for all of the states. i wanted to get an opt out in case the state wanted to opt out. finally the supreme court gave that. but it got used against me while i was drying something that i shouldn't have. and actually i was not. and the interesting thing is i was asked to do this by the nebraska governor, and i did finally get an thank you from another governor from another state. >> that wasn't the so-called kickback. >> that's right. >> during the time you experienced the radio talk show host circuit and the table tv circuit. what was the period like? what do you think that echo chamber in american policy today does for the system? >> the echo chamber is a difficult thing to deal with it. it's not just broadcast, it's the blogs, the tweets, all the electronic communications today. whey found . >> that's been during the twelve years. in 2000 we didn't have . >> that's right. suddenly, you know, and i think i was prepared for what would happen with that i certainly wasn't. as a matter of fact i
. but the supreme court has said that, you know, those words really don't mean what they say, there's not a categorical ban and that there is an exception in this area. and you would think, well, gee, you know, if the supreme court is going to carve out an exception, you know, to the principle of racial discrimination that's, you know, pretty clearly there in the haw, you know,, the branches have spoken to this, it must be pretty, pretty strong and undeniable, you know? it must be something like, you know, it helps us identify somebody that's about to set off a nuclear bomb in the middle of new york city or something like that, you know, in order to be compelling. well, you know, the argument is that if you use racial discrimination in college admissions, um, it's likely that there will be somewhat more of unrehearsed, interracial conversations among students and that the african-american kids and the latino kids, you know, who get these preferences are going to say something to the white kids and the asian kids that is, just has overwhelming, compelling educational benefits for the
states, et cetera, i used to be able to quote it, i don't think i can now. anyway, it's written down. and the preamble is important saying we the people. but is not the only thing. and i say that because i do think, i had a very interesting conversation in china, i thought. i've gone there twice. the first time was a few years ago, maybe eight or 10, when we went to beijing and then we went to shanghai. and in shanghai we are asked to meet with a group of businessm businessmen, and these businessmen have all been involved in the.com. they lost a lot of money. most of them have made a lot back. so they're talking, and i was fascinated with his. one of them said i prefer the cultural revolution. the others said, what? he said the cultural revolution. why? he says, because then you knew the government was the enemy, now you're not sure. [laughter] so i said you already want to bring up about a democratic system. they said yes. i'm not a law teacher. so after they say how much they're all favored the market, i said that's a very interesting question, point. i favorite. i favorite, but i'
in which many don't know and can't figure out whether they can rely on the fourth amendment to protect sensitive information that they routinely share with others for a limited business purpose. congress needs to act to preserve the fourth amendment's protections as they apply to everyday uses including routine use of the internet, use of credit cards, libraries and banks. absent such protections, individuals may in time grow weary of sharing information with third parties. i'm cognizant that this area of the law is complex. it's full of changes and full of instances in which we have to undertake a very delicate balancing act. nevertheless, much work remains to be done to ensure that the fourth amendment protections are here and that they are real and that they benefit americans and that they do so in a way that doesn't interfere with legitimate law enforcement and national security activities. we must not shy away from the task simply because it is hard. it is daunting, but it is possible and it is necessary. congress must act to preserve americans' constitutional right to be secure i
warrant, but because we don't have the details of exactly how this proceeds and we can't debate this in a public forum those details, then we are stuck with wrestling with the fact that we need to have the sorts of protections and efforts to close loopholes that senator wyden has put forward. what we do know is this past summer, the director of national intelligence said -- and he said this in a public forum -- that on at least one occasion, the fisa court has ruled that a data collection carried out by the government did violate the fourth amendment. we also know the fisa court has ruled the government has circumvented the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law. but too much else of what we should know about this law remains secret. in fact, we have extremely few details about the courts have interpreted the statute that have been declassified and released to the public. and this goes to the issue of secret law that my colleague from oregon was discussing earlier. that if you have a phrase in the law and it's been interpreted by a secret court and the interpretation
it is accurate to say second, and sorry, the second question? >> i don't believe there was an interview at secretary clinton but he would have to address that to the ambassador and then on the third question? >> on the list of i believe they did interview 100 individuals in this arb as well and i'm not sure that it's in the arb that the people were interviewed, but i think it may be but i don't know if it is classified or the unclassified version. i would also like to point out,,, you made a very good point about the arb in 1998 after the bombings. one of the recommendations was, which you pointed out, is to begin funding the construction of the councils and embassies had a case of about ten a year that was the decision of the bipartisan board. the allocated at the time in 1999 about a billion .5 dollars that was paid for in 1998 about ten each year during unfortunately, that has now dropped to $700 million doing it now to of the embassy's a year. >> thank you, mr. smith and the witnesses. mr. sherman, the ranking member of the subcommittee on terrorism and on proliferation and trade is
yesterday, those who give up their liberty in order to have security, as ben franklin said, really don't deserve either. the two are not mutually exclusively, mr. president. we can do both. that's what the constitutional teeter-totter has always been about. security of the country here,
of which we think is a voice. so if everybody -- don't go off. and also don't go off when we have the votes, if we could stick to the ten minutes, it will enable us to complete the disposition of the bill. so, mr. president, i yield the floor and recommend we follow the regular order ordered by senator mccain. the presiding officer: does anyone seek debate time on the mccain amendment? ms. mikulski: i yield back the time. the presiding officer: if not, all time is yielded back. the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. quorumvote: vote: vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 49. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 3367 as modified further, offered by the senator from oregon, mr. merkley. ms.
. so the fact is, most members of congress don't have staff to help them deal with these complicated issues, so they're in many particulars in the dark about the program, and certainly the 300-plus million americans who expect us to strike that balance between security and liberty also are in the dark. now, mr. president, i've already noted that the amendment gives the executive branch unfettered authority to make redactions, and i just want to make sure every senator hears the exact language, because i think this is as broad a redaction proposal as i've seen in my service on the committee. the redaction proposal states, "if the president believes that public disclosure of the report required by this section could cause significant harm to national security, the president may redact such information from the report made available to the public." so i hope colleagues who have asked about whether this would endanger our country, particularly at a dangerous time -- now they've heard here on the floor of the senate that somehow this amendment would seek to name names -- i hope they will
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10